I'm seeing more criminals crash into shit, restart their engines and drive off without notice from staff than officers ramming into things to end a situation, getting banned for it in the process.
I don't understand why we need to make reports and AR's if a staff member can pick up an officer just as easily for the same thing.
An armed civilian poses a high threat to the public and the rest of the police force if gone rouge, the majority of these situations end in a massive shootout with just a single or two civilians killing 10s of officers because the officers simply can't outgun a rifle, which means they need TFU (SWAT) to cover them.
An officer would always take the first most suitable option to end any kind of situation either lethally or non-lethally
regardless of their own life.
Hitman took a chance and rammed into a vehicle in an attempt to stop the gunman instantly, which succeeded and potentially saved multiple officers' lives.
Not to mention that officers lives are always at risk in any kind of situation, any incident they respond to their life is always on the line, they don't know the severity of the situation until they're in the middle of it. We've all seen police getting massacred in regals and slums. I don't exactly see any action taken by staff when this happens because the officers have "weapons to protect themselves" although it's proven that using lethal force to enter a property guarded by 4 armed suspects with rifles failed and 90% of the officers died just trying to enter the door.
Which means officers should realistically retreat, and not stand guard of the door. Yet this still happens, and no action is taken.
I see some officers doing this though, saving their own life and returning with backup. The numbers of officers doing this is increasing with every training session held.
Hitman put his own life at risk in attempts to save many others, which succeeded and he most likely came out alive, as well as many other officers and possibly civilians.
The actions he took were justifiable as only one of two potential deaths occurred compared to a shootout where over 4-6 potential deaths could have occurred.
In a shootout your life, the shooter's life and all civilians surrounding the area's lives is always at risk.
In a car chase, your life and officers lives, civilians lives and the rogue drivers life is at risk.
How does any action taken in a shootout or car chase make it justifiable?
Officers receive no reward for stopping the criminal, where as the criminal escapes and is caught later, making the escape a futile action.
The suspect will always be warranted if identified by officers.
This image, while not relevant to the situation, presents a dangerous situation for both officers, the suspect and surrounding civilians.
The gunman has the gun to his own neck, and could if he wanted to start a shootout with the officers, potentially catching civilians in the crossfire.
The officer took a chance to ram right into the suspect to end the situation immediately, which succeeded.
The officer still put his life on the line for it, but was rewarded with a much safer situation where the suspect is in a controlled environment, because he was rendered immobile due to the injuries applied to him via the officer's action.
Your life in a shootout is always at risk, yet is justified in what manner?
The similarities are, you never know what could occur if you let the suspect run the situation with his own decisions. Stopping a suspect before he can do anything at all is safer than letting him shoot at you.
Hitman
KNEW the suspect was armed, he
KNEW the situation could get out of hand if the suspect was allowed to do as they wished, and all officers should know the consequences of ramming their vehicle into something at ludicrous speeds, but it's better to save a potential of 3 or more people's lives at the cost of potentially two.
You can never predict a situation, I made a mistake long ago to ram into another vehicle in order to stop their vehicle, but none of the occupants were armed, and I knew this, but did it anyway to stop them, I went about 40-50 MP/H yet this still risked everyone's lives including bystanders as the vehicle would have shifted a considerable amount.
This is something you can class 3.4 and 2.1.
My actions did not outweigh the negatives and also caused severe damage to the vehicle and both occupants including me.
Hitman however took actions that outweighed nearly every negative aspect of the situation.
If you want to tell us; "doesn't matter, you still put your life at risk" then what in the fuck are you supposed to do in a shootout? Run away so that you're safe again, although you're the officer along with other officers trying to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths inside another apartment building or in the streets?
What do you prefer?
Ram your car into another car, with a high chance of ending the situation before it begins, although risking your own life regardless?
Let the suspect shoot at you and have a chance of you being killed anyways?
Tyla rammed a suspect against a concrete wall at around 30 to 40 MP/H. While this swiftly kills the suspect instantly realistically, this also puts his own life at risk by doing these speeds, but getting out of his car and letting bullets decide the situation, which the suspect has more of with a rifle mind you, is by far more dangerous than ramming your car into the wall. The suspect can kill you with a single head shot instantly in both situations, but the suspect had no time to decide when the vehicle came at him, sirens and headlights blazing, blinding him.
3.4.
I have always hated this rule
(along with many other rules) personally, as it doesn't specify what you're allowed to do, or not, much like the building guidelines that were recently released that help you understand what you're allowed to or not.
But there are so many aspects of this rule I can't cover myself, and you'll have to deal with it.
People have their own views of the rules, and sometimes they mistake their actions for being justifiable when a staff member's view on it makes it unjust.
The building guidelines allowed everyone to be on the same page, many rules are loosely set and no-one really has the same view at all.
If you ask me how you should clarify these rules, keep in mind that your staff team along with the owners are the ones that wrote and changed them, it's your own responsibility to ensure we can all follow these rules, not mine, I'm just a member of the community looking for an enjoyable experience.
